1 2026:CGHC:25660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5516 of 2026 Deepak Dadsena S/o Uttam Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Islam Mohalla Saraipali Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali Distt- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 301/2025 registered at Police Station – Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 311, of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.23 14:53:50 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the that complainant Basant Kumar Sahu lodged a written report stating that on 23.10.2025 at 4:30pm he had gone to fetch petrol in the petrol pump near by Shree Hotel. At that time in a motorcycle HF Deluxe bearing no. OD 03 A 1453 three persons Ajit Lala, Himansu Sona and Deepak Dadsena came there. Ajit Lala was carrying a a small revolver, Himansu Sona was carrying a knife. These persons by pointing knife and revolver looted Rs. 500/- and paid Rs. 250/- in the petrol pump by phone pay of the complainant. Therefore, they looted total Rs. 750/ 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is the sole bread earner of his family, and his continued incarceration would cause severe financial hardship to his dependents. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and that no weapon such as arms or knife is attributed to the applicant as per the prosecution case. It is contended that the applicant is a permanent resident of his village, where his family and both movable and immovable properties are situated, and therefore there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from justice. The applicant undertakes to furnish adequate surety and to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court,, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 24.10.2025, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Deepak Dadsena, involved in Crime No. 301/2025 registered at Police Station – Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4), 311, of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav